| Literature DB >> 31864378 |
Junjun Tang1, Kejian Wu1, Jinchang Wang1, Jian Zhang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The management of old bony mallet fingers is complicated. The aim of the study is to present a new method of open reduction and compression with double Kirschner wires (K-wires) in treating old bony mallet fingers.Entities:
Keywords: Avulsion fracture; Flexion angle; Fracture fixation; Kirschner wires; Mallet finger
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31864378 PMCID: PMC6925853 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-019-1513-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Fig. 1Diagram of the degree of dislocation and the size of the fracture block. a The length of the articular surface of the phalangette fracture block and the length of the residual articular surface were measured. The length of the articular surface of the fracture block divided by the sum of the two was the proportion of the articular surface of the fracture block. b The lateral film was used to assess whether there was anterior subluxation in the DIP joint of the affected finger. The presence or absence of consistency in the axis of the distal and middle phalanxes was used to determine the dislocation. If the distal phalanx axis was displaced forward, but the dorsal cortical bone line did not exceed the axis of the middle phalanx, it was considered as mild dislocation. If the dorsal cortical bone line was displaced forward and exceeded the axis of middle phalanx, it was considered as severe dislocation
Characteristics of the 17 included patients
| No. | Sex | Age (years) | Time from injury to operation (days) | Affected finger | Initial treatment | Classification | Size of the bone block (%) | Degree of dislocation | Time of operation (min) | Post-operative follow-up time (m) | Time of fracture healing (weeks) | Complications | Articular surface | VAS | Crawford score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Female | 19 | 35 | Right ring finger | No | 1A | 25 | No | 64 | 8 | 10 | No | Good | 0 | Excellent |
| 2 | Male | 24 | 44 | Left middle finger | No | 2B | 33 | Mild | 66 | 10 | 5 | No | Excellent | 0 | Excellent |
| 3 | Male | 17 | 58 | Left middle finger | Plaster | 2B | 50 | Severe | 75 | 8 | 6 | No | Excellent | 0 | Excellent |
| 4 | Male | 24 | 72 | Right ring finger | Brace | 1A | 28 | No | 70 | 12 | 13 | No | Good | 0 | Excellent |
| 5 | Female | 27 | 60 | Right little finger | No | 2B | 40 | Mild | 48 | 8 | 8 | No | Excellent | 0 | Good |
| 6 | Male | 30 | 56 | Left index finger | Plaster | 2B | 35 | Mild | 52 | 6 | 8 | No | Excellent | 0 | Excellent |
| 7 | Male | 31 | 54 | Left little finger | No | 1A | 28 | No | 80 | 9 | 10 | No | Good | 0 | Excellent |
| 8 | Male | 18 | 42 | Right ring finger | Plaster | 2B | 55 | Severe | 60 | 9 | 6 | No | Excellent | 0 | Good |
| 9 | Male | 19 | 47 | Right little finger | Brace | 1B | 33 | No | 50 | 7 | 6 | No | Excellent | 0 | Excellent |
| 10 | Male | 20 | 66 | Left ring finger | Brace | 2B | 62 | Severe | 65 | 8 | 8 | No | Excellent | 0 | Excellent |
| 11 | Male | 19 | 50 | Right ring finger | No | 2B | 52 | Severe | 55 | 19 | 9 | No | Excellent | 0 | Good |
| 12 | Male | 41 | 59 | Left ring finger | No | 2B | 40 | Mild | 52 | 6 | 7 | No | Excellent | 0 | Excellent |
| 13 | Male | 25 | 60 | Left little finger | No | 2A | 30 | Mild | 60 | 6 | 6 | # | Good | 0 | Excellent |
| 14 | Male | 19 | 48 | Left ring finger | Plaster | 2B | 50 | Severe | 54 | 7 | 8 | No | Excellent | 0 | Good |
| 15 | Male | 33 | 44 | Right ring finger | Brace | 2B | 40 | Mild | 55 | 6 | 5 | No | Excellent | 0 | Excellent |
| 16 | Male | 22 | 56 | Left ring finger | No | 2B | 38 | Mild | 45 | 8 | 6 | No | Excellent | 0 | Excellent |
| 17 | Male | 83 | 30 | Right middle finger | Brace | 1B | 37 | No | 58 | 10 | 8 | No | Excellent | 3 | Poor |
| Mean or median | 24 (17–83) | 54 (30–72) | 5/12 | 2/10/5 | 58 (45–80) | 8 (6–19) | 8 (5–13) | 13/4 | 12/4/1 | ||||||
#Local black scab
Postoperative characteristics of the 17 patients
| No. | Angle of loss of dorsiflexion (preoperatively) | Angle of loss of dorsiflexion (postoperatively) | Flexion angle (healthy side) | Flexion angle (postoperatively) | ROM (healthy side) | ROM (affected side postoperatively) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 35 | 0 | 85 | 85 | 85 | 85 |
| 2 | 45 | 5 | 55 | 55 | 55 | 50 |
| 3 | 50 | 0 | 85 | 85 | 85 | 85 |
| 4 | 30 | 0 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 |
| 5 | 35 | 5 | 80 | 75 | 80 | 70 |
| 6 | 40 | 0 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 |
| 7 | 40 | 0 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |
| 8 | 30 | 0 | 75 | 75 | 75 | 75 |
| 9 | 35 | 0 | 70 | 65 | 65 | 65 |
| 10 | 40 | 0 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |
| 11 | 45 | 0 | 90 | 90 | 90 | 90 |
| 12 | 30 | 0 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |
| 13 | 25 | 0 | 85 | 85 | 85 | 85 |
| 14 | 40 | 0 | 80 | 80 | 80 | 80 |
| 15 | 60 | 10 | 80 | 70 | 80 | 60 |
| 16 | 45 | 0 | 80 | 75 | 80 | 75 |
| 17 | 30 | 0 | 85 | 80 | 80 | 75 |
| Mean ± SD | ||||||
| Median (range) | 40 (25–60) | 5 (0–10)* | 80 (55–90) | 80# (50–90) | 80 (55–90) | 80 (50–90)& |
ROM range of motion
*Comparison between the preoperative angle of loss and postoperative one, P < 0.001
#Comparison between the flexion angle of affected side and that of healthy side after surgery, P = 0.0625
&Comparison between the ROM of the affected side and that of healthy side after surgery, P = 0.0625
Fig. 2A 27-year-old female patient (no. 5) presented to the hospital 60 days after injury. a The old bony mallet finger of the right little finger. b, c Two K-wires were used to compress and fix the bone block. d After removal of the K-wire 6 weeks after surgery, the fracture was initially healed, and the articular surface was smooth without step and collapse
Fig. 3A 27-year-old female patient (no. 5). a Preoperative deformity, with limited dorsiflexion. b, c Anteroposterior and lateral appearance 2 weeks postoperatively. d, e Appearance 8 months postoperatively. Flexion and extension were normal